The Definition of Pagan

[TeaDidikai]

Pagan:

Merriam Webster

1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3: neo-pagan

Merriam Webster on Heathen

1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person

Merriam Webster on Neo-Pagan

a person who practices a contemporary form of paganism (as Wicca)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary

Quote:

A. n.

1. a. A person not subscribing to any major or recognized religion, esp. the dominant religion of a particular society; spec. a heathen, a non-Christian, esp. considered as savage, uncivilized, etc. Now chiefly hist.
b. A follower of a pantheistic or nature-worshipping religion; esp. a neopagan.

2. In extended use.

{dag}a. euphem. A prostitute. Obs.

b. A person of unorthodox, uncultivated or backward beliefs, tastes, etc.; a person who has not been converted to the current dominant views of a society, group, etc.; an uncivilized or unsocialized person, esp. a child.

B. adj.

1. a. Holding, characteristic of, or relating to those who do not subscribe to any major or recognized religion, esp. the dominant religion of a particular society; spec. heathen, non-Christian or pre-Christian (usually with connotations of savagery or primitiveness). Now chiefly hist.
In quot. 1463-4, referring to the Spanish mackerel.

b. Pantheistic, nature-worshipping; (now) esp. neopagan.

2. In extended use: immoral, spiritually lacking; uncivilized, backward, savage.

I posted these for reference. (Thanks for the OED entry Nuri)

When we discuss the meaning of the term Pagan, we get into a sticky situation. Some feel the term is too broad and thus looses its meaning. Some argue specifically for self identification.

I think given the theological nature of this forum, we can disregard the commentary on prostitutes, the uncivilized and Spanish Mackerel.

Some of these definitions rely on population to provide context as to a theology's nature, counting "major" world religions as not being pagan. But then the question becomes- what defines a religion as "major"? Is it the role in history? Number of adherents world wide? Or as some of the definitions allude- the number of adherents in a given specific population?  

[Ainwyn]

Well, the obvious "major religions" would be the Big Five: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But would there be others in here? I'm not sure. I suppose I'd add folk based, or indigenous to my definition (savage and primitive aren't really terms that are used or considered correct anymore), but I don't know enough about all religions to know if that would become a little blurry in the case of some religions.

So, according to some of these definitions, I suppose there would be some monotheistic religions in the pagan category, such as Zoroastrianism. I've never equated all polytheistic with paganism, but I've never thought of the idea of monotheism as pagan. But then, Zoroastrianism is a religion I know very little about, so I suppose I'd need to read more about it to understand where something like it fits.  

[TatteredAngel]

I think that the problem with "major" is that it's kind of arbitrary. I'm willing to settle for few adherents and marginalized as "not-major," but that's arbitrary too. I like the word pagan for its convenience, but I don't really like it as a way to say anything very specific.

I limit my use of "pagan" generally to situations in which anything else would require extra explanation that I'm not into at the moment. A as a for-example, the other day I was talking to some people I work with about my foster sisters. I mentioned that they were raised pagan, which was immediately understood. They're Asatru, actually, but in the given company, there was no way I wanted to get into the fiddly details.

For me, "pagan" generally boils down to something that most people understand as non-Abrahamic, and is easy to use in casual conversation.  

[Ainwyn]

So you'd put Hinduism and Buddhism in the pagan category? Those are the religions that really raised this question. If you'd call them pagan, why? If you wouldn't, why?  

[Nomad of Nowhere]

I don't consider Zoroastrianism a pagan religion. It displaced the polytheistic worship of the Iranian "Daevas" even Mithra eventually, and held "the wise lord", Ahura Mazda, as the true god. There was an intermediate period in which the worship of Ahura Mazda and other gods coexisted, but this is not form that the religion took once it had fully developed, nor what form it takes at this day. I believe it was the world's first recorded example of dualism like we find in Christianity, with a good god, and a bad god; Aingra Mainyu, destructive spirit. Before then, even the Hebrews did not believe in an evil counterpart to their god, and even Satan was an angel who acted at god's behest, as I'm fairly certain he does in the book of Job. It's very anti-polytheistic. I once had a Zoroastrian friend who told me that he gave equal respect to any religions that had one god.

The pre-Zoroastrian "Daeva" is a direct cognate of the Hindu "Deva", only in India, these Devas were not maligned and made into demons like they were later on in Iran. Hinduism is seemingly polytheistic, with different gods interacting with one another as though they are different people. One interpretation is that all things are one, so while all gods are one, they are no more the same gods than we are all the same person. There is a tendency towards monotheism that developed later on, but the roots of the religion feel very pagan. I've read about the Hindu Devas, and they seem no more strange than any other god from a tradition that is accepted as pagan; Hindu's once worshipped Indra as a main god, and Indra slays Vritra in a manner typical of any serpent-slaying Indo-European storm god. Very familiar to me. Now- I've met some Hindu's, who don't consider themselves polytheistic, and I've met some that do, so it's not homogenous, but I do not feel as different from some Hindus that I've spoken with, spiritually, as I did from my Persian friend.

Let me also just say that I don't want Paganism to mean any religion that is not common, because that's a poor reason to identify with someone spiritually, and in fact, it really offers no identity at all. The prevalence of a belief does not change it's nature, or else you might as well contend that our pre-christian ancestors were not pagan, since many of them held a tradition that was the norm for the time.  

[Ainwyn]

Like I said, I don't know much about Zoroastrianism, but now I know more. Thanks smile  

[MoonJeli]

What sources does the definition "non-Abrahamic faith" come from?  

[TatteredAngel]

MoonJeli

What sources does the definition "non-Abrahamic faith" come from?

Absolutely none whatsoever. But I find that many people I talk to understand it as such-- and like I said, I'm not using it for reasons of specific or even very accurate definition, since I think it's pretty crappy for both. But in the context of day-to-day life here, especially when I'm not actually looking for a good long argument, "pagan" serves to mean that I'm not talking about anyone who's Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. I suppose I could add Buddhism, but I've talked to plenty of people who are fuzzy on that too, and again we get into a long explanation that I'm not necessarily looking for.

Sometimes, depending on company, I just say "non-Christian" when I would otherwise say "pagan" but that's no more specific or enlightening.  

[Thou]

MoonJeli

What sources does the definition "non-Abrahamic faith" come from?

The Church father Tertullian (QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS) took what was also being used as military jargon (L. paganus, "incompetent soldier" or "civilian") and applied it to any person not of the Christian faith (c. 202), for they were not soldiers of Christ (L. milites). St. Augustine echoed Tertullian around the same time.

This military imagery is common among the early Church fathers.  

[TeaDidikai]

MoonJeli

What sources does the definition "non-Abrahamic faith" come from?

Part of it is a function of "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible "

The god of the Bible being the god of Abraham.  

[Thou]

I found a small tidbit in my copy of The Study of Words, so I thought I'd pop a few more ideas off about this word.

Those responsible for turning the word paganus (ultimately from the English payen or paien, but Latinized by conquest) were the Christians, and they ascribed to it the meaning of "non-Christian". While Archbishop Trench (Anglican) gives us a later date of origin in the transition of the meaning than Douglas Harper, both accurately relate that the Christians were the ones responsible for the shift, giving us 1700+ years of a definition of "non-Christian". I'm having a hard time finding a sufficient quotation where the meaning of the word is broader than exclusion from Christendom. Help?

Trench, Study of Words, p. 102

The Christian Church fixed itself first in the seats and centres of intelligence, in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire, and in them its first triumphs were won ; while long after these had accepted the truth, heathen superstitions and idolatries lingered on in the obscure hamlets and villages of the country ; so that pagans or villagers came to be applied to all the remaining votaries of the old and decaying superstitions, inasmuch as far the greater number of them were of this class. The first document in which the word appears in this its secondary sense is an edict of the Emperor Valentinian, of date A.D. 368. The word "heathen" acquired its meaning from exactly the same fact, namely that at the introduction of Christianity into Germany the wild dwellers on the "heaths" longest resisted the truth.

 

[in the flicker.]

MoonJeli

What sources does the definition "non-Abrahamic faith" come from?

I've actually something to say on this! *squee*

Actually, I first came across this definition in my own at-home giant dictionary. it's a reader's digest encyclopedic dictionary from 1977 =P. it says:

"1. one who is neither a Christian, a Jew, nor a Moslem; a heathen. 2. in early Christian use, an idol worshipper. 3. an irreligious person."

the "non-Abrahamic" just means, as I understand, not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. I don't know how many people have read such a definition, but this is where I've always understood the term "pagan." and I do find it interesting that religions like Hinduism and Taoism are pagan religions....